What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

I'm not sure I completely agree with this restatement of Popper's Rule of Falsification, although I've heard a lot of variations similar to this one. In science, any claim must at least potentially have a way of being false. For example, even something as simple as "The sun will rise tomorrow" can - at least potentially - be falsified if the sun didn't rise tomorrow (it went nova, a massive comet struck the earth, the Vogon Constructor Fleet ended the experiment, etc). The claim that no human lifespan can exceed 130 years can be falsified by any one person living to age 131, etc.On the falsification front, the difference between pseudoscience/non-science and science is that the former can not be falsified. The claims are either ambiguous ("Certain crystals can realign your energy center" - okay, so how do you tell if it is realigned? or out of alignment in the first place?), or they are invulnerable because they are inherently unfalsifiable (sometimes called the multiple out - an inexhaustible series of excuses that explains away evidence that would tend to falsify the claim - creationists are past masters of this type - think of the unevidenced claim of a "special environment" in the past that renders all dating methodology incorrect by 100's of orders of magnitude).However, I've never met any scientist who deliberately sets out to disprove his own research claim (other peoples' definitely). In essence, then, I disagree with your formulation.